RPC vs Ranger Energy Services
RES and RNGR side by side, both in oil and gas field services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How RES and RNGR compare
RPC is the larger company, worth 4.4 times as much as Ranger Energy Services ($1.3B against $293M).
RPC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.8% versus 16.9% for Ranger Energy Services).
Ranger Energy Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.4% compared with −1.8% at RPC.
Both pay dividends: RPC yields 2.1% and Ranger Energy Services 1.9%.
Ranger Energy Services scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 8 for RPC), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | RES | RNGR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | $293M |
| Share price | $5.77 | $12.51 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.9% | −10.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 44.3% | 22.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 0.39 |
| Employees | 2,893 | 2,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 19.2× |
| P/S | 0.7× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 1.2× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.8× | 3.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 35.3× | 8.3× (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.8% | 12.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $5.88 | $18.38 |
| Margin of safety | 1.9% | 31.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.8% (better) | 16.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.1% | 23.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −167% | 4.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −174% | 0.00% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.3% (better) | 17.5% |
| Operating margin | −2.2% | 3.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −1.8% | 2.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.0% | 5.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | −3.0% | 5.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −3.4% | 6.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.02 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.23 | −0.07 |
| Interest coverage | −13.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.52 (better) | 2.04 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.07 (better) | 3.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 37.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 0.27% | 2.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% | 4.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 42.7% | 86.0% |
| Held by insiders | 82.0% | 7.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$1.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 38.2% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- RES stock overview
- RES income statement
- RES valuation and score
- RNGR stock overview
- RNGR income statement
- RNGR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.